Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're advocating a higher birth rate, to use infrastructure? That's like having another child because you have an extra bedroom. Who does that? Infrastructure serves people; people don't serve infrastructure.
The structures will fall apart on their own. No need to worry about them.
He's advocating the pyramid scheme of continuous population growth via mass immigration instead of allowing it to naturally reduce and stabilize. What happens when the population gets old? Why, keep importing foreigners who hate old people of another race to take care of them into perpetuity since the former will get old too. Why, keep building infrastructure. Meanwhile, no thought is given the sociopolitical effects of mass immigration of 3rd worlders into America, Western Europe or Japan. Eventually the pyramid scheme collapses.
Yes, little did I know when I used to laugh at the humor in Idiocracy, that one day it wouldn't be so funny. One day, rather than a comedy, Idiocracy would turn out to be a predictive documentary.
Well... it's not my sperm count. LOL. Yeah, okay, I can still laugh at it, even though it has come true.
Japan is often held up as a warning of the dangers of a falling population. However, Japan currently has record low unemployment because of the shrinking labor force, has deflationary property prices unlike most of the developed world, making it easier for young people to start out, and enjoys a prosperous and peaceful society.
What is so wrong with a shrinking population? Japan doesn't sound all that bad right now. The only cogent argument I hear against declining populations is that they will cause the collapse of welfare states. I see that as a positive since the PAYGO nature of welfare states is immoral and environmentally destructive since they depend on constant population growth to function.
We can't grow forever. And in fact life is becoming so stressful and expensive that a lot of people all over the world are choosing smaller families, if they have a family at all. I think the world would be a much better place if the population were cut in half or more. The people who would be born would enjoy more space, nature, inheritance, and parental love.
Half?! What the hell good is that going to do?? reset the clock on the inevitable by another 100 years? Big deal.
No, the sustainable global population, the one where the human footprint is simply too small for the globalists to try to infect the entire world with Third World wage slaves, where commies don't whine and snivel about "global warming" and where the various cultures all have enough territory to stay in their own lands without the progs/commies/globalists all trying to force them into just the white countries to exterminate whites.....
is a fraction of "half".
Its about 100M.
At 100M, humanity has a shot at living conflict free, in peace, and of having a good run at eons of existence.
The way we're going right now...the clock is ticking away in centuries, if not decades.
The world's population will rise dramatically over the next century. That in and of itself is not a problem since, given reasonable progress in technolgy, many time the current population could live comfortably on and around the Earth. The problem is this:
Given the demographics of 2100, an advanced future technological society is hardly assured. It could all come crashing down with a massive die off.
Yeah, if you want huge swathes of land returned to nature then you're gonna have to eliminate a bunch of humans. Maybe you could just petition to end the medical profession for a few years. That should do it.
Surprise, it's already happening. Many farms have been purchased and turned into nature preserves. Food production hasn't dropped.
Every political and economic system on the planet, capitalism, socialism, etc., doesn't matter, is based on growing the economy which is based on a growing population. It's like a global Ponzi scheme. How long can this continue before the earth is unsustainably overpopulated. Massive population reduction doesn't sound like a good idea but what about something approaching zero population growth?
Every political and economic system on the planet, capitalism, socialism, etc., doesn't matter, is based on growing the economy which is based on a growing population. It's like a global Ponzi scheme. How long can this continue before the earth is unsustainably overpopulated. Massive population reduction doesn't sound like a good idea but what about something approaching zero population growth?
The UN came up with Agenda 21 for sustainable growth, just a guide but some thought this was a left wing scheme. No we can not continue to increase population at this rate, it spells disaster for all but particularly developing countries in Africa.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
